Talk:Benjamin Creme

Saith Baba reference

I took the liberty to remove the section titled Saith Baba. This simply refers to another master which Creme has 'referred' to and is clearly not specific to the subject.

Any discussion on this?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benjamin Creme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102002835/http://www.share-international.org/index.htm to http://share-international.org/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409071736/http://share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2009/2009-07.htm to http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2009/2009-07.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Creme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140511022617/http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/aetherius.htm to http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/aetherius.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Paintings found

Some mention of appropriate? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Improvements

In addition to the issue of the paintings recovery being added, I would suggest using the telegraph obit https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/11/11/benjamin-creme-artist-and-esotericist--obituary/ as the basis of some of this Wikipedia entry, as it is a neutral third-party article, and appears to be pretty balanced. There are too many references to Creme books, they should be reduced by a third or more. Mike.97301 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Probable AI text

Concerns were raised previously about AI-generated content in this article, which is prohibited per WP:NEWLLM. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Read WP:AISIGNS for more information for why this is tagged; however, note that fixing the issue requires more than just removing the superficial signs. Details: skyerise edits, see WP:AISIGNS and note user has disclosed AI use (post-2023) elsewhere Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Tag

This tag is like a construction sign that has been left behind by workers who vacated the site long ago, and now seems irrelevant. Although I have not read every rendition of this Wikipedia entry, I have not seen any “hallucinations”’(i.e. AI generated text), although there may have been misrepresented citations or misleading info in this article in the past. This tag thus seems to be spurious, wide-ranging and unfounded as well as political in scope. Moreover, by listing a smorgasbord of possible or supposed crimes, the tag is being used as a deterrent or obstruction to any potential readers. LoveJoinsAllThings (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The tag is neither political nor is it a "smörgåsbord of possible or supposed crimes", "a deterrent" or "obstruction". In fact, one of the reasons that it is there is to aid the readers by informing them that they are about to read a text that has in part been generated by an algorithm. Readers that come to Wikipedia because they want to read what we have written there. If they wanted to read an algorithmically generated encyclopaedia, they would have gone to grokipedia.com, but they chose to come to wikipedia.org instead. Another purpose of the tag is maintenance, to inform editors that may be interested in cleaning up. If the AI-use spans multiple articles, the user will be discussed on WP:AIN, and users often end up being brought to WP:ANI when there is serious misconduct. Removing these tags without fixing the problems is considered disruptive, so please do not do that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please highlight or copy and paste what you believe is AI generated text in this article so we can ascertain what you are referring to, as I see no such thing anywhere in this article. LoveJoinsAllThings (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

As AI is a relatively recent invention and this article was written almost in its entirety before 3 years ago, I do not believe it can be said to be “AI generated”. LoveJoinsAllThings (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Look for the edits by User:Skyerise in the page history. As was mentioned before, this user had disclosed using AI to make their edits, so it is not really up for debate if they are AI-generated or not (we know they are, because the user told us that they were). If you want the tag removed, you have to first undo all of the contributions by this user. Then there is also the possibility of a different user having added even more AI-generated text. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not an all-or-nothing solution. Skyerise is a one-of-a-kind contributor whi might be deemed a saboteur—one who largely purged text with abandon, without adding anything of import. There were decades of writing before him, and a few years thereafter even: I would give no special dispensation nor mention to this contributor or unduly focus on his remarks, and I certainly would not allow him to determine the thrust of the article, considering he is merely one of many contributors. LoveJoinsAllThings (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

None of that matters. They added LLM generated text. Therefore the is LLM generated text in the article. Therefore it as tagged as {{ai-generated}}. If you don't like it, then feel free to undertake the work to remove the LLM-generated text. But as long as there is LLM-generated text in the article, the tag is relevant and will remain, regardless of what year the article was created or who has contributed to it before or since. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I scrutinized every change Skyerise made and while I do not agree with his having removed large portions of the earlier text, the remainder of his comments, excisions and additions related almost entirely to his cleaning up cited sources.

While Skyerise may have used AI generated text in other articles he later edited, I just do not witness that here. And at any rate, his contributions were added largely in 2024—-long before the release of Claude, Gemini or Chat GPT to the wider public. For this reason, I continue to maintain that the first of the two tags be removed. LoveJoinsAllThings (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Public access to ChatGPT started on 30 November 2022.

And you continue to be wrong. Read the first message of this thread. The user told us that they used AI. We know this, because the user told us. Gnomingstuff would not have tagged this article if there was any doubt. It is completely immaterial whether or not you personally recognise the signs.

It is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)